There are so many Alonso or Hamilton fans. The Alonso fans all want to say Hamilton is amazing, implying Alonso is also amazing since they were matched in 2007. The Hamilton fans all want to say Alonso is a god for the same reason (that it implies Hamilton is a god due to 2007). And then the only people going around equivalently raving about Kimi are his fans, and the same for Vettel.

To me, when you factor out that BS, you're left with that Vettel is clearly the most consistent and successful driver in F1 presently. However, Kimi is in an noncompetitive team and completely outdrove both Alonso and Hamilton during the majority of the last 5 years. Sure, you could say Hamilton out drove him in 2008, but then Button out drove Hamilton by an even larger margin last season. You could say Alonso outdrove Kimi 6 and 7 years ago, but you could also say that 2007 (where Kimi outdrove everyone) is more relevant and that the 2005 WDC really could have gone either way. In Alonso's case, there are almost 10 seasons now where he's been in F1 but only the 2 championships 6 and 7 years ago.

For lack of current and applicable data, we can't say Kimi is the best. Among the other 3, any sensible person has to acknowledge that Vettel has been head and shoulders above everyone else.

I prefeer to look at circumstances and not just sheer stats, so well, I kind of disagree with your final "acknowledgements", which rather than that are just your opinions.

If you add Raikkonen to that list then yes, those 3 and maybe to a slightly lesser extent Raikkonen seem to have that something extra above the rest - as much as I hate to admit that being such a big Webbo fan.

He won Malaysia in the best wet-weather car.He was 4th in Valencia before a SC gave him 3rd, and then put him on Grosjean's tail before two Renault engines burst. So a good drive to 4th, but we've seen Vettel do that as well.Ferrari was not the 3rd-fastest car in Germany.

So, please point me to when Alonso got such results on merit.He did well to be there when opportunities arose, but he did not win on skill alone.

1) no he didn't. He got lucky Perez cocked it up otherwise he would've lost. Where were you saying the F2012 was definitely the best "wet weather" car when everyone was claiming Checo gave him the race..

2) reliability is part of F1 but RB fans only use this argument when it helps Seb's cause, not hurt it.

3) agreed but what's the point? Tell you what, you post the number of races where the F2012 was clearly quicker than the RB8/field & I'll post where the RB8 was clearly faster than the F2012/field and let's see where we end up.

Excellent post. I tire of these 'Vettel is in the best car' myth and the totally discredited 'he can only hack it from the front'. Without a shadow of doubt, Vettel is currently the King of F1. Results as they say speak for themselves.

1--Vettel--simply the quickest. The quali-king, some of his quali performances this season have been like daylight robbery. I have lost count of the number of times, I thought he couldn't get pole only to be disabused. His race performances this season. expercially earlier on, has cemented an already formidable reputation. A 3rd crown is all that remains for admittance into the all-time great pantheon.

Why he wasn't that quick when his car wasn't dominant? It's really simple question. Can you answer it?

Why he wasn't that quick when his car wasn't dominant? It's really simple question. Can you answer it?

Red Bull and particularly Vettel had problems with Tyres, also he left some q3 runs undriven.yet he scored three poles on the first half of the season as well ...which is excatly the same mount as he has got in the latter half of the season...so not that bad!

Red Bull and particularly Vettel had problems with Tyres, also he left some q3 runs undriven.yet he scored three poles on the first half of the season as well ...which is excatly the same mount as he has got in the latter half of the season...so not that bad!

Mystrious tyres, convinient answer to everything.

He was losing to Webber, tied tru half point of the season. Doesn't sound like a King

He was losing to Webber, tied tru half point of the season. Doesn't sound like a King

Tyres indeed, it's the main thing in formula 1 where you can find or lose most of the performance. For example Lotus and Sauber this year had advantage on the the first half of the season because their car was so gentle to the tyres now they have lost that advantage, also it was their biggest weakness because it affected their quali performances.

Those Tyres and the car suited better for Webber, every king has his hard time...but it makes you even a stronger king to raise and beat your rivals ;) first half of the season went 120-110 for Webber but Vettel had one retirement from the lead and penalty in germany. Latter half is 163-47 for Vettel.

Tyres indeed, it's the main thing in formula 1 where you can find or lose most of the performance. For example Lotus and Sauber this year had advantage on the the first half of the season because their car was so gentle to the tyres now they have lost that advantage, also it was their biggest weakness because it affected their quali performances.

Those Tyres and the car suited better for Webber, every king has his hard time...but it makes you even a stronger king to raise and beat your rivals ;)

Sory I'm not buying this. I would much rather prefer some real arguments.

Even if RBR had problem with the tyres then the situation was equal for both drivers within a team. Claiming that car was siuted to Webber in the first half of the season sound just like a silly excuse.

Sory I'm not buying this. I would much rather prefer some real arguments.

Even if RBR had problem with the tyres then the situation was equal for both drivers within a team. Claiming that car was siuted to Webber in the first half of the season sound just like a silly excuse.

You have no arguments at all.

So Vettel is better than Webber just because car is good? Where is Webber now, why isn't he performing?There is always a reason why other driver dont perform as well as other, Webber it was a year 2011 when he was crap as hell to be honest and he is that now as well....but he was good in 2009,2010 and first part of the 2012 why? Because things worked out for him, car suited and he was working well with tyres.

Same goes for Hamilton and Button..This year Hamilton has been clearly better than Button but 2010 and 2011 he wasn't it was actually quite the opposite, why?

So Vettel is better than Webber just because car is good? Where is Webber now, why isn't he performing?There is always a reason why other driver dont perform as well as other, Webber it was a year 2011 when he was crap as hell to be honest and he is that now as well....but he was good in 2009,2010 and first part of the 2012 why? Because things worked out for him, car suited and he was working well with tyres.

Same goes for Hamilton and Button..This year Hamilton has been clearly better than Button but 2010 and 2011 he wasn't it was actually quite the opposite, why?

Actually Kubica had great 2009 season. Many people, including you, didn't really pay attention to his performances and that's perfectly understandable because he was hardly fighting for points.

How should I know about Webber? This guy is enigma. You can only conclude he's not good to be a top driver. Neither Button is for that matter.

I don't know it looks like Webber fades away in the second half of the season, maby his stamina runs out, maby season is to loong for him. But in the European races he's quite good. Maby he's not good at Tilke's stop and go tracks?

The fact is the cars (chassis) don't change their characteristics trough the season. Just look at Mercedes. Changed gearbox, nosecone, sidepods, they been trough crash tests of the front, rear and sides of the car. Still the car is tyre eater.

So I'm not willing to agree on that the RBR's car suddenly changed it's characeristic. The pattern that emerges for me is that RBR is dominant car and so is Vettel. He's good at running away in the races when he starts first. That all that is to Vettel's greatness.

Actually Kubica had great 2009 season. Many people, including you, didn't really pay attention to his performances and that's perfectly understandable because he was hardly fighting for points.

How should I know about Webber? This guy is enigma. You can only conclude he's not good to be a top driver. Neither Button is for that matter.

I don't know it looks like Webber fades away in the second half of the season, maby his stamina runs out, maby season is to loong for him. But in the European races he's quite good. Maby he's not good at Tilke's stop and go tracks?

The fact is the cars (chassis) don't change their characteristics trough the season. Just look at Mercedes. Changed gearbox, nosecone, sidepods, they been trough crash tests of the front, rear and sides of the car. Still the car is tyre eater.

So I'm not willing to agree on that the RBR's car suddenly changed it's characeristic. The pattern that emerges for me is that RBR is dominant car and so is Vettel. He's good at running away in the races when he starts first. That all that is to Vettel's greatness.

Against his team mate he didn't as Heidfeld was at least equal to him, agreed the car was really bad.

Button is a world champion, yes in a best car but he beated Hamilton clearly last year, was already close 2010 and Hamilton is praised to be a top driver...

Others have got tyres working, Mercedes has spent three years in F1 without able to do so. You can get tyres working better in many ways, improving your aerodynamics, adding more downforce and with new suspensions.

Getting tyres work has happened so many times in the past. McLaren was no where in 2005 in qualifyings until they changed their suspension geometry and thy started flying on qualies.

I may be biased but I personally wouldn't lump Hamilton's 2011 in with that lot, and neither would I lump either Schumacher 2010 or in there either.

Hamilton never lost speed, or pace like the above and in fact beat was beating his team mate on points in the first half of the season, it was a lack of judgement which led to multiple race ruining collisions and slightly bad luck that led to him seemingly being beaten yet even in his worst year, he scored the second highest number of wins, and the only non Red Bull pole position.

Similarly 2010, was a learning year for Schumacher adapting to a completely different set of regulations, while his 2011 (bar the front wing incidents) was actually rather good with him still lacking qualifying pace, but having excellent race pace as well,.

I suppose unless you look at data, you cannot say why X is slower than Y. Everybody has their issues, some get on top of their issues fairly quickly, others take a bit more time. The measure of great drivers is actually how quickly they get on top of their problems.

I am not a big hamilton fan, but if he gets to be tagged as one of the best out there, Vettel deserves to be given an equal or better status. Whatever problems vettel had at the beginning of the season, he still managed to limit the damages by maximising his race days. Hamilton has been, in what, the fastest car of 2012? and it took him round 7 to win for the first time. He was unlucky with his pitstop and penlaties, but nobody stopped him from being clever and maximising his results.

BTW vettel won in bahrain and webber finished some fair distance behind.
Nobody could figure out Pirellis in the first half of the season. Thats a fact.

This was Mark Hughes' take on the 'big 3', was written shortly after the 2010 season finished. In no particular order:

Lewis Hamilton

What he actually does with the car, the things he can make it do, are beyond anyone else, in much the same way that was true of Ronnie Peterson in the 1970s. When McLaren was testing with him in earnest in the 2006-07 off-season, the engineers were stunned to discover how he adapted to wildly varying handling characteristics and also to how relaxed he was with levels of oversteer that none of their previous drivers – Senna, Hakkinen and Raikkonen included – would have lived with. Davey Ryan's words, not mine. It is pure, raw, undiluted talent of a massive order.

But he needs guidance more than most top drivers, is less adept at making his own calls than Alonso, Webber or Jenson Button. All of his being seems consumed with driving faster than any man on earth and often that is all that's required. But sometimes – see Australia or China last year – the demands are more multi-layered than that. It was noticeable too that Button was more usually relied upon to give technical direction post-Fridays.

Fernando Alonso

He has a multi-dimensional understanding of what is required and the talent to deliver on every level. Central to this is an inner rage to win and he can control and direct this rage wonderfully well.

He also demands that the team be centred around him, in much the way that previous greats did. Understanding the crucial moments of a race, a fine-honed awareness of the strategic implications within the ebb and flow of a race and a very solid technical direction are additional to his core basic speed – and Ferrari adores him for all those things.

He is less convincing when the car does not allow him to be in contention and Hamilton revealed his Achilles heel by being as fast or faster during that infamous '07 season. His emotional reaction there led to several bad decisions.

Sebastian Vettel

His free and easy spirit is translated directly in the way he effortlessly extracts the maximum from a great talent: that's his default setting.

He is quick regardless of handling traits and never happier than when the car is edgily darty on turn-in. He's razor sharp too and at his best makes the whole thing look ludicrously easy.

There is an inner fierceness behind the smiles and it is this which drives him. He has the raw desire of all the greats, though occasionally that can boil over into irrationality. They are niggles though, and likely to be eradicated as his experience builds.

Against his team mate he didn't as Heidfeld was at least equal to him, agreed the car was really bad.

That's what I meant when I said poeple didn't pay attencion. They were equal on points but not on performance. Because I'm sure you can't remember their drives when they didn't score, which was most of 2009 season for BMW

Button is a world champion, yes in a best car but he beated Hamilton clearly last year, was already close 2010 and Hamilton is praised to be a top driver...

Button is not even close to Hamilton. He solid (most of the time) but not top

Others have got tyres working, Mercedes has spent three years in F1 without able to do so. You can get tyres working better in many ways, improving your aerodynamics, adding more downforce and with new suspensions.

Getting tyres work has happened so many times in the past. McLaren was no where in 2005 in qualifyings until they changed their suspension geometry and thy started flying on qualies.

I may be biased but I personally wouldn't lump Hamilton's 2011 in with that lot, and neither would I lump either Schumacher 2010 or in there either.

Hamilton never lost speed, or pace like the above and in fact beat was beating his team mate on points in the first half of the season, it was a lack of judgement which led to multiple race ruining collisions and slightly bad luck that led to him seemingly being beaten yet even in his worst year, he scored the second highest number of wins, and the only non Red Bull pole position.

Similarly 2010, was a learning year for Schumacher adapting to a completely different set of regulations, while his 2011 (bar the front wing incidents) was actually rather good with him still lacking qualifying pace, but having excellent race pace as well,.

I may be biased but I personally wouldn't lump Hamilton's 2011 in with that lot, and neither would I lump either Schumacher 2010 or in there either.

Hamilton never lost speed, or pace like the above and in fact beat was beating his team mate on points in the first half of the season, it was a lack of judgement which led to multiple race ruining collisions and slightly bad luck that led to him seemingly being beaten yet even in his worst year, he scored the second highest number of wins, and the only non Red Bull pole position.

Similarly 2010, was a learning year for Schumacher adapting to a completely different set of regulations, while his 2011 (bar the front wing incidents) was actually rather good with him still lacking qualifying pace, but having excellent race pace as well,.

Hamilton destroyed his tyres for too early compared to Button 2011, McLaren even warned him about that and he had to take more conservative approach to his Q3 driving (using only one set of new tyres and not to push too much)

Schumacher himself stated 2010 bridgestones didnt suit him and I think I will have to believe him.

That's what I meant when I said poeple didn't pay attencion. They were equal on points but not on performance. Because I'm sure you can't remember their drives when they didn't score, which was most of 2009 season for BMW

Button is not even close to Hamilton. He solid (most of the time) but not top

Yeah, go and tell that to Mercedes

Button lacks qualifying speed but in races he has the pace to fight against Hamilton. Of ourse he is not on the same level as he is but not as dar as you say.

Mercedes and even their former teams Brawn,Honda, BAR all had problems with tyres and they still haven't figure them out. Other teams can many times, there must be some fault in Mercedes team desing philosophy.

Button lacks qualifying speed but in races he has the pace to fight against Hamilton. Of ourse he is not on the same level as he is but not as dar as you say.

Mercedes and even their former teams Brawn,Honda, BAR all had problems with tyres and they still haven't figure them out. Other teams can many times, there must be some fault in Mercedes team desing philosophy.

What about Ferrari in 2011 season? They had troubles heating up the tyres up for the whole season.

Hamilton destroyed his tyres for too early compared to Button 2011, McLaren even warned him about that and he had to take more conservative approach to his Q3 driving (using only one set of new tyres and not to push too much)

Schumacher himself stated 2010 bridgestones didnt suit him and I think I will have to believe him.

Not really there were only two races in 2011, where I would say this happened, Sazuka (where degradation was so bad the team thought it was a puncture), and India where he didn't have the pace. I know most Hamilton fans would say they were his worst race results, yet Button had an equal amount of races (China 2011, Abu Dhabi 2011) which are almost a mirror image especially China where he burnt out the prime tyres which meant he couldn't catch Vettel or hold off Webber.

If I recall he did the one run several times, but only in China was it out of choice (it didn't have an effect on his race anyway) in Monaco, his laps were aborted due to traffic and a red flag, and in Singapore he had both a puncture in qualifying, and there was an issue with refueling.

What about Ferrari in 2011 season? They had troubles heating up the tyres up for the whole season.

Evidence vs you opinion... it's easy call for me.

Ferrari has the philosophy to make car gentle to the tyres at least from 2007 onwards ( the desing philosophy of Tombazis) Ferrari improved their quali performances every year 2010-2012 since they understand the tyres better and add more downforce to the car.

So you say tyres have no effect on car performances what so ever? Or that teams can't improve their cars to get more performances out of the tyres? And that drivers driving styles don't have any matter how they work with tyres? I must say you are wrong if you don't agree that tyres have an effect on everything and there can be massive performance found from the tyres...I wonder why every experts an drivers agree on me on this one...

Ferrari has the philosophy to make car gentle to the tyres at least from 2007 onwards ( the desing philosophy of Tombazis) Ferrari improved their quali performances every year 2010-2012 since they understand the tyres better and add more downforce to the car.

So you say tyres have no effect on car performances what so ever? Or that teams can't improve their cars to get more performances out of the tyres? And that drivers driving styles don't have any matter how they work with tyres? I must say you are wrong if you don't agree that tyres have an effect on everything and there can be massive performance found from the tyres...I wonder why every experts an drivers agree on me on this one...

What? I know the cars are designed around the tyres. And I say it's hard to change the design in the middle of the season, where you say it's easy.

I gave you examples of Mercedes 2012 and Ferrari 2011. While you only generalized on those facts. Like Ferrari seadly improving its quali performance every year? That's false because 2011 Ferrari was way worst than 2010. Or that Mercedes, BAR and Honda never figured the tyres out.

Just look at the standings this year. To not include raikkonen in the list is ridicilous. After all hes 3rd in the WDC with the 4th best car. Hes just as good if not better than all of these three. They all have different strenghts and different attitudes but surely each of them have weaknesses too. You could say alonso loses his head under pressure, kimi sucks at quali, hamilton either wins or crashes, vettel is a crybaby but after all theyre performing on such a high level you cant really know.

I've said before in this thread I think Kimi's very near the top 3, but have to acknowledge even as a Kimi fan that stuff like "he's 3rd in the 4th best car" is a bit misleading. I look at Hamilton who's behind in the standings and has had a clearly quicker car, yet really don't think Kimi's driven as good as him. He's lost 50 points due to 2 mech failures alone and has had an awful lot of incidents, strategical mishaps etc not of his fault, whereas Kimi's been pretty lucky to have had mostly clean reliable races all year. A lot of credit to him for taking the car home when people like his team-mate can't for example, but sometimes circumstances conspire against you and he's been awfully lucky not to have that happening at any time.

When considering how much a driver has been extracting of a car you need to look at: 1) car speed 2) reliability 3) team's strategical choices including stuff like safety car timings 4) incidents not of his own fault including crashes and messed-up pitstops. Too often people only look at 1) which admitedly is the biggest factor but far from tells the whole story.

To a lesser degree you can say the same about Alonso vs Vettel. Kimi and Alonso have been brilliant at avoiding incidents hence getting more points out of slower cars, but also quite lucky incidents haven't gone after them.

What? I know the cars are designed around the tyres. And I say it's hard to change the design in the middle of the season, where you say it's easy.

I gave you examples of Mercedes 2012 and Ferrari 2011. While you only generalized on those facts. Like Ferrari seadly improving its quali performance every year? That's false because 2011 Ferrari was way worst than 2010. Or that Mercedes, BAR and Honda never figured the tyres out.

Ok but no I didn't ever say it's easy to get tyres working better just that it's possible with many ways and most of the teams have done it this year except Mercedes but they seem to have that problem every year nd it's their fault.

Ok maybe Ferrari didn't get the best out of the tyres in 2011 but it was mainly because of they failed on car development, but their problem was most of the time on soft rubber while harder compounds worked well. But Ferrari did improve their one lap speed significantly compared to others, positions did stay similar yes but gap was a lot smaller from 1,6 seconds to 0,6 seconds in the end of the season and sometimes much closer than that too.

Just checK how often Kimi puts his car on outside of turn one in the race starts and also how often he yields first corner when somebodY like maldonado just forces himself into turn 1( Valencia comes to my mind ). Thats not luck, thats experience and awareness. Kimi has had some off days this season, but he hasn't had a mighty team like ferrari,mclaren or redbull behind him.

Just checK how often Kimi puts his car on outside of turn one in the race starts and also how often he yields first corner when somebodY like maldonado just forces himself into turn 1( Valencia comes to my mind ). Thats not luck, thats experience and awareness. Kimi has had some off days this season, but he hasn't had a mighty team like ferrari,mclaren or redbull behind him.

I

Kimi (and likewise Alonso) has a talent for staying out of trouble no doubt, credit for that, but if trouble wants to find you it will no matter what. So it's a bit of both - talent and luck.

I am not a big hamilton fan, but if he gets to be tagged as one of the best out there, Vettel deserves to be given an equal or better status. Whatever problems vettel had at the beginning of the season, he still managed to limit the damages by maximising his race days. Hamilton has been, in what, the fastest car of 2012? and it took him round 7 to win for the first time. He was unlucky with his pitstop and penlaties, but nobody stopped him from being clever and maximising his results.

To be fair you're being unduly harsh on Lewis. Saying he should have been clever to maximize his results is utter rubbish. The team has cocked up many of his races this year to the point that it was not recoverable. No amount of being clever would have helped after some of those pit stops. I'm a Ferrari & Alonso fan but I must say that if McLaren had not royally ruined Lewis's season he would be going into Brazil with a chance to win the WDC. In fact he might actually be leading heading into this season.

All of this discussion is subjective and only ones opinion, but I don't think Seb has proved he's any better than Lewis. Equal? I would agree.

Isn't it so that the first one to vote No here proved the Yes voters wrong?

No it's not so. The question at hand about the top 3 drivers is a subjective matter. Who are you or anyone else to tell the next person their opinion is wrong on an opinionated topic?

Why he wasn't that quick when his car wasn't dominant? It's really simple question. Can you answer it?

Why did Alonso only score 19 points more than Massa in the 2nd half of the season, despite having some updates exclusively for himself at some races or his teammate being ordered to hold station or drop to back at the grid for 5 places?

And no: I dont´need answers like "because he lost points when Grosjean punted him off" etc. Because without Karthikeyan slicing Vettel´s rear-tyre in Malaysia and the alternator in Valencia - he would´ve lead the WDC since the 2nd race of the season.

Both did well this season and ALO a bit better for me, but it´s not like VET was abysmal when the car wasn´t the best whereas ALO walked over the water for the whole season.

Ps. Sry if i mentioned ALO without a direct relation to your answer. I misread the title of the thread and thought this would be the "Seb or ALonso"-thread.

Why did Alonso only score 19 points more than Massa in the 2nd half of the season, despite having some updates exclusively for himself at some races or his teammate being ordered to hold station or drop to back at the grid for 5 places?

And no: I dont´need answers like "because he lost points when Grosjean punted him off" etc. Because without Karthikeyan slicing Vettel´s rear-tyre in Malaysia and the alternator in Valencia - he would´ve lead the WDC since the 2nd race of the season.

Both did well this season and ALO a bit better for me, but it´s not like VET was abysmal when the car wasn´t the best whereas ALO walked over the water for the whole season.

Would you not agree Massa is driving much much better in the 2nd half of the season? As for the updates, they haven't really worked, an ongoing problem for Ferrari. So new parts don't mean squat when they're not working.

IMO the Karthikeyan issue was Sebs fault. No need to get that close to a back marker. I remember some of the commentators on Sky saying the exact same thing. As for the alternator, reliability plays a large role in F1. Reliability issues cost Fernando the pole in Monza.

Would you not agree Massa is driving much much better in the 2nd half of the season? As for the updates, they haven't really worked, an ongoing problem for Ferrari. So new parts don't mean squat when they're not working.

IMO the Karthikeyan issue was Sebs fault. No need to get that close to a back marker. I remember some of the commentators on Sky saying the exact same thing. As for the alternator, reliability plays a large role in F1. Reliability issues cost Fernando the pole in Monza.

Reliability cost Alonso pole in Monza, but in the end it only cost him 3 to 10 points.Reliability in Monzo alone cost Vettel as much as that, not to mention Valencia.

Would you not agree Massa is driving much much better in the 2nd half of the season? As for the updates, they haven't really worked, an ongoing problem for Ferrari. So new parts don't mean squat when they're not working.

Of course i would. But that also conversely means for me, that Massa was quite poor in the 1st half and therefore his results probably shouldn´t used as a benchmark for the quality of the Ferrari. To underline that:WDC-standings of the 2ndf half of the season (just counted the top runner´s results)

Anyone, who would argue that the Red Bull was crap in the 2nd half of the season (because of Webber´s results) and VET outdrove everyone despite of that, should be considered an idiot. But that´s the same reason, why i can´t completely follow the "Ferrari was so poor until Silverstone"-routine, just because Massa was nowhere.

IMO the Karthikeyan issue was Sebs fault. No need to get that close to a back marker. I remember some of the commentators on Sky saying the exact same thing. As for the alternator, reliability plays a large role in F1. Reliability issues cost Fernando the pole in Monza.

Disagree about the Malaysia-incident, but i see no reason, why that should be discussed again.Regarding reliabilty:I dunno what you wanted to tell me with that. Of course it´s a part of F1 (as is the fact that the car´s have not the same pace...).

Of course i would. But that also conversely means for me, that Massa was quite poor in the 1st half and therefore his results probalby shouldn´t used as a benachmark for the quality of the Ferrari. To underline that:WDC-standings of the 2ndf half of the season (just counted the top runner´s results)

Anyone, who would argue that the Red Bull was crap in the 2nd half of the season (because of Webber´s results) and VET outdrove erveyone despite of that, should be considered an idiot. But that´s the same reason, why i can´t completely follow the "Ferrari was so poor until Silverstone"-routine, just because Massa was nowhere.

Disagree about the Malaysia-incident, but i see no reason, why that should be discussed again.Regarding reliabilty:I dunno what you wanted to tell me with that. Of course it´s a part of F1 (as is the fact that the car´s have not the same pace...).

I don't know what you're getting at?? You asked why Fernando had only scored 19 more points than Felipe in the 2nd half. Answer: because Felipe is driving better & because of Alonso DNF's. Theres the points difference right there. You also mentioned that Fer had updates Felipe didn't. Answer: the updates haven't been working. Austin is prime example. The old spec was better than the new spec.

You mentioned Vettel and the Malaysia incident, which I think is his own fault and the alternator problems. That's why I mentioned reliability is a part of F1.

And? Good reliability is an advantage in F1. It's not Ferrari's fault Red Bull doesn't have the same great reliability.

Read the title of the thread please. It's about driver performance. It's common practice to correct for car performance and reliability while discussing driver performance. If you disagree with that practice, explain your reasons.

I don't know what you're getting at?? You asked why Fernando had only scored 19 more points than Felipe in the 2nd half. Answer: because Felipe is driving better & because of Alonso DNF's. Theres the points difference right there. You also mentioned that Fer had updates Felipe didn't. Answer: the updates haven't been working. Austin is prime example. The old spec was better than the new spec.

The post i initially answered suggested, that Vettel didn´t perform well, when his car didn´t seem to be the best in the field.I just asked that counterquestion to point out, that it´s easy to portray a situation in a way, which puts the driver in a darker light, if you just use the information/facts that you want.Regarding the updates: They still use some of the parts, that arrived in India, do they? But that point is negligible.

You mentioned Vettel and the Malaysia incident, which I think is his own fault and the alternator problems. That's why I mentioned reliability is a part of F1.

Yes. I still don´t see the point. Does that mean it is irrelevant for the evaluation of the qualitiy of the car or the driver´s abilities in relation to his results in the WDC (best examples of 2012 are Hamilton and Schumacher...)?

I don't know what you're getting at?? You asked why Fernando had only scored 19 more points than Felipe in the 2nd half. Answer: because Felipe is driving better & because of Alonso DNF's. Theres the points difference right there. You also mentioned that Fer had updates Felipe didn't. Answer: the updates haven't been working. Austin is prime example. The old spec was better than the new spec.

You mentioned Vettel and the Malaysia incident, which I think is his own fault and the alternator problems. That's why I mentioned reliability is a part of F1.

Funny that after friday Fernando praised all the updates work like they expected but suddenly as he performed worse than Felipe who didn't have updates...the updates didn't work

Yes. I still don´t see the point. Does that mean it is irrelevant for the evaluation of the qualitiy of the car or the driver´s abilities in relation to his results in the WDC (best examples of 2012 are Hamilton and Schumacher...)?

No it's not irrelevant, not in the least. However when you bring up Malaysia & Valencia in regards to Seb, one could only think of the other side of that coin, which would be Monza Quali, Spa & Japan for Fernando. I won't argue shoulda woulda coulda, but the gap was significantly cut at Spa & then in Japan. Of course it helped that Seb drove well in this period.

Funny that after friday Fernando praised all the updates work like they expected but suddenly as he performed worse than Felipe who didn't have updates...the updates didn't work

Indeed. I wish someone from the media would have asked them why did they work on Friday but didn't over the weekend.

No it's not irrelevant, not in the least. However when you bring up Malaysia & Valencia in regards to Seb, one could only think of the other side of that coin, which would be Monza Quali, Spa & Japan for Fernando. I won't argue shoulda woulda coulda, but the gap was significantly cut at Spa & then in Japan. Of course it helped that Seb drove well in this period.

It did not help, 'doing well' is the very reason that it is a showdown between Vettel and Alonso.When the Red Bull was lacking, Vettel always staid close enough and was there to pick up any piece dropped.When the Ferrari was lacking, Alonso always staid close enough and was there to pick up any pieces dropped.

Vettel was moved into by Maldonado, Hamilton was moved into by Maldonado.Alonso was the one moving into Kimi, very different.

Listing Alonso there is like saying Hamilton should have just breaked for Grosjean, as it is the exact same situation. Alonso/Grosjean moves over, Kimi/Hamilton don't brake.

Well, the initial discussion came from the cleanliness of Kimi's driving. And that he backs out or plays it safe whenever there is a sniff of potential danger around. That's why my comment was about "avoiding". Not that who was more at fault.